Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Execution of Promissory Note Not In Dispute, Defendant's Narrative Improbable: AP High Court Affirms Liability in Rs.13 Lakh Borrowing Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the bench presided by the Honourable Sri Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu dismissed the appeal challenging the validity of a promissory note involving a sum of Rs.13,00,000, thereby affirming the trial court's decision.

The case centered on the execution and subsequent dispute of a promissory note wherein the respondent, Potla Venkateshwarulu, was accused by the appellant, Gude Hari Babu, of failing to repay the full borrowed amount with interest as stipulated. The appeal contested the trial court's decree that had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, confirming the debt owed by the defendant based on the promissory note.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed Rs.13,00,000 for business purposes and partially repaid Rs.25,000, leaving a substantial balance unpaid. The defendant, however, contended that the amount was for a joint real estate venture and accused the plaintiff of fraud. The issues revolved around the authenticity of the promissory note and the purpose of the borrowed sum.

Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu pointed out that "Absolutely, execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant is not in dispute." The court found the defendant’s signature on the promissory note and his acknowledgment of partial payment as conclusive evidence supporting the note's execution.

The court noted several improbabilities in the defendant's narrative, particularly his claims of the amount being for a real estate venture. There was no substantial evidence to corroborate his assertions, undermining his defense.

The testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2, was consistent and corroborated the details of the promissory note. The court highlighted the inability of the defendant’s witness to discredit the plaintiff’s evidence effectively.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, citing no grounds to challenge the trial court’s findings. However, considering the partial payments already made, the court permitted the defendant to clear the remaining debt in three installments by July 31, 2024. Failure to comply with this directive would allow the plaintiff to execute the decree for the outstanding amount.

 Date of Decision: April 19, 2024.

Gude Hari Babu v. Potla Venkateshwarulu

Latest Legal News